What is modelling for? a critical review of the models of path integration

Maurer, Roland; Séguinot, Valérie

doi:10.1006/jtbi.1995.0154

Cited by 109 publications

(84 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the general validity of these models may be questioned. For instance, the model failed to describe the homing trajectories of hamsters after a more convoluted outward trip that started with a loop around the point of departure (Séguinot et al, 1993;Maurer and Séguinot, 1995).…”

Section: Etienne and Jefferymentioning

confidence: 99%

Path integration in mammals

2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT:It is often assumed that navigation implies the use, by animals, of landmarks indicating the location of the goal. However, many animals (including humans) are able to return to the starting point of a journey, or to other goal sites, by relying on self-motion cues only. This process is known as path integration, and it allows an agent to calculate a route without making use of landmarks. We review the current literature on path integration and its interaction with external, location-based cues. Special importance is given to the correlation between observable behavior and the activity pattern of particular neural cell populations that implement the internal representation of space. In mammals, the latter may well be the first high-level cognitive representation to be understood at the neural level.

show abstract

Section: Etienne and Jefferymentioning

confidence: 99%

Path integration in mammals

2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The second involves sensing of self-motion-whether pure rotation, pure translation, or a combination of the twoand integration of sensed self-motion to obtain current position with respect to the origin of locomotion; sensing of self-motion is based on information about velocity and acceleration, either sensed information or commands to the musculature. The entire second stage ofprocessing is referred to as path integration or dead reckoning (Fujita, Loomis, Klatzky, & Golledge, 1990;Gallistel, 1990;Israel & Berthoz, 1992;Klatzky, Beall, Loomis, Golledge, & Philbeck, 1998;Loomis et al, 1993;Maurer & Seguinot, 1995;Potegal, 1982). The third internal process is spatial (or imaginal) updating of the initially perceived target according to the estimate of the person's current location; spatial updating has been the focus of considerable research (e.g., Amorim, Glasauer, Corpinot, & Berthoz, 1997;Book & Garling, 1981;Loarer & Savoyant, 1991;Pick & Rieser, 1982;Potegal, 1971Potegal, , 1972Presson & Montello, 1994;Rieser, 1989;Rieser, Guth, & Hill, 1986;Rieser & Rider, 1991).…”

Section: Perceptually Guided Actionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing auditory distance perception using perceptually directed action

Loomis

Klatzky

Philbeck

et al. 1998

Perception & Psychophysics

127

125

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three experiments investigated auditory distance perception under natural listening conditions in a large open field. Targets varied in egocentric distance from 3 to 16 m. By presenting visual targets at these same locations on other trials, we were able to compare visual and auditory distance perception under similar circumstances. In some experimental conditions, observers made verbal reports of target distance. In others, observers viewed or listened to the target and then, without further perceptual information about the target, attempted to face the target, walk directly to it, or walk along a two-segment indirect path to it. The primary results were these. First, the verbal and walking responses were largely concordant, with the walking responses exhibiting less between-observer variability. Second, different motoric responses provided consistent estimates of the perceived target locations and, therefore, of the initially perceived distances. Third, under circumstances for which visual targets were perceived more or less correctly in distance using the more precise walking response, auditory targets were generally perceived with considerable systematic error. In particular, the perceived locations of the auditory targets varied only about half as much in distance as did the physical targets; in addition, there was a tendency to underestimate target distance, except for the closest targets.Spatial hearing is concerned with the localization of sound sources and reflecting surfaces. In this paper, our focus is on the localization of sound sources. The egocentric location of a source is usually specified in these following coordinates: azimuth (compass direction with respect to the facing direction ofthe head), elevation, and distance. The vast majority of studies on the localization of sources has been concerned with directional hearing; only a few studies have dealt with auditory distance perception. Now, however, the emerging technology of virtual acoustics is promoting considerable interest in the topic. Virtual acoustic displays have considerable promise as interfaces between humans and computers in which "virtual" or "spatialized" sound is used to represent real and virtual environments and abstract data structures

show abstract

“…Further experiments will be necessary to try to understand why estimation errors involving these two parameters are not correlated in cockroaches and why these errors seem to indicate that they are represented independently. Systematic errors in orientation have been reported in nearly all species using path integration mechanisms (Gomer & Claas, 1985;Maurer & Seguinot, 1995;Muller & Wehner, 1988;Wehner & Srinivasan, 1981). The inaccuracy of estimations by idiothetic cues suggests that nocturnal animals rely on several other kinds of cues to improve their navigation performance, such as olfactory (Benhamou, Sauve, & Bovet, 1990) and visual (Rivault & Dabouineau, 1996) cues.…”

Section: Systematic Search Path Patternsmentioning

confidence: 99%